I know this was errata'd for Edge of the Empire, but I'm a little confused as to why the new rulebook also has the same wording for damage dealt in the two scales of combat. In personal scale any uncancelled successes deal extra damage over the weapon's base rating, while in planetary scale it's 'remaining success symbols after overall success has been established'.

I'm assuming that they have just been incredibly lazy with copy/pasting the rules from EotE (wouldn't surprise me, especially as their proof reading seems a bit poor with this book), but is it possible I've missed something and it really is meant to work differently at the different scales?

Yes, uncanceled successes are added to the damage at both scales.

Try writing a book yourself sometime cupcake. It's hard to catch mistakes in something you've been working on that long. My editor saves my bacon almost every time I write an article, and I bring in the whole shop to help review my video productions that I expect to get any play.

From a certain point of view...they can both be made to say the same thing Failure cancels Success, so if overall success is established, any Success not cancelled by Failure is "remaining."

Yes, uncanceled successes are added to the damage at both scales.

Try writing a book yourself sometime cupcake. It's hard to catch mistakes in something you've been working on that long. My editor saves my bacon almost every time I write an article, and I bring in the whole shop to help review my video productions that I expect to get any play.

Not just writing the words either. What the words are trying to convey changes, sometimes completely, as rules are revised and as people write old ideas and intent get mashed into current typing. I wrote under pressure (as one of my primary pirate skills, arrr) and there were times it made sense when I typed it, and then when I read it aloud it sounded as though someone hit me in the head with a hammer.

Fair points all, and thanks for the clarification on the rule, but it comes across as lazy when something they've specifically had to FAQ due to it being unclear in one book is left with the same wording.

As for the proof reading comment it's more for poor use of english at points in the book than unclear rules, and admittedly it's nowhere near as bad as, for example, when they did WFRP 2nd ed. Probably just me being a bit of a purist with language, but to be fair that is why proof readers are employed... Still, my apologies if I've ruffled any feathers.

Fair points all, and thanks for the clarification on the rule, but it comes across as lazy when something they've specifically had to FAQ due to it being unclear in one book is left with the same wording.

As for the proof reading comment it's more for poor use of english at points in the book than unclear rules, and admittedly it's nowhere near as bad as, for example, when they did WFRP 2nd ed. Probably just me being a bit of a purist with language, but to be fair that is why proof readers are employed... Still, my apologies if I've ruffled any feathers.

Hmmm...the apology doth ring false, methinks.

Musing: instead of assuming a major character flaw exists in a team of writers (laziness), one could assume that one or more humans, somewhere down the line, could have made a mistake.

Further, I would contend that it is even more charitable (and less headache-y) to try and find a reasonable interpretation of the text that favors mutual compatibility. A piece of rules can be interpreted in different ways, but if one is confused and looking for a "right" way, it can most often be found in the context of the larger work.

(EDIT: thumb hit the Post button too soon...)

Fair points all, and thanks for the clarification on the rule, but it comes across as lazy when something they've specifically had to FAQ due to it being unclear in one book is left with the same wording.

As for the proof reading comment it's more for poor use of english at points in the book than unclear rules, and admittedly it's nowhere near as bad as, for example, when they did WFRP 2nd ed. Probably just me being a bit of a purist with language, but to be fair that is why proof readers are employed... Still, my apologies if I've ruffled any feathers.

This seems to be a general problem with the material put out from FFG. The writing and organization of the rules for Android is another great example of a poor and unclear writing style.

I was mostly just happy for the excuse to call someone "cupcake."